And no, it's NOT a huge flaw. The process is designed for settling disputes, not having public trials. It's only when people absolutely refuse to consider obeying the law that they move onto hearings before a tribunal.

And if it's true that no details are disclosed, I think that's another huge flaw.

Well, if you don't believe it's true, contact Lifesite and or another authority and find out. And if you don't like that...just what planet do you think you're living on? Details of setllements are routinely kept private. Since you have no standing in the case, it's really none of your business. Like RB said, it's a dispute settlement mechanism, not CourtTV for your personal entertainment.

Picking and choosing the pieces of reality you like and disregarding those you don't is a sign of irrationality, you know. You should really look into that, before you start having any more kids.

ti-guy:Picking and choosing the pieces of reality you like and disregarding those you don't is a sign of irrationality, you know. You should really look into that, before you start having any more kids.

What it all means is that you're incoherent, SUZANNE.______________________________

So sayeth the ti-guy, speaker of 5 languages, holder of a Masters degree. Thus we know that ti-guy believes ends justify means. We can now add to ti-guy's "support" list (because he wouldn't want to be "incoherent") the Nazi use of concentration camp prisoners to test the effects of hypothermia saving thousands of lives in the post-war years. Ends meet means, good end, justified means, right? Right?

What are you on about, you psychotic? I'm sure I've never said anything much about the ends justifying the means because I never support that rationalisation in matters of significant importance. Both means and ends have to be guided by some sort of morality and ethics or at least, some commonly-accepted utility, or they cannot be supported and usually have unintended consequences. If you consider yourself a moral or ethical person, ends justifying means is incoherent. I'm sure SUZANNE wants to think of herself as a moral person (which she is decidely not, since she's profoundly dishonest, but anyway...), so what other conclusion should we come to?

The whole anti-choice campaign is rotten with incoherence from top to bottom. It's why people such as myself (who's against abortion) won't support them; who has in fact gone from thinking they are simply a group entitled to its position on an issue of public policy to believing they're an actual danger to our society.

Ooooh, I see. Your morality is good and anyone you disagree with, their's is bad. Hence, your morality can justify the means and ends. Where Suzanne's morality, like believing in freedom of speech and expression, is so obviously wrong, when she likes an end but doesn't think the means are justified she is "incoherent". I get it.

Will you be available at all times to vet the morality of us mere mortals and help us avoid "incoherent" positions? Please, please professor ti-guy?

The process is designed for settling disputes, not having public trials.

Except that it has the power to levy fines and assign guilt and essentially determine how the law applies. This determination is made by people who don't necessarily have a background in the law. Without rules of procedure.

My God, but you're a moron.

You're a supposed progressive speaking of my sexuality and how I got "pregnant" and I'm the moron?

I guess it's okay to attack a person's sexual behaviour when "progressives" do it.

Ooooh, I see. Your morality is good and anyone you disagree with, their's is bad. Hence, your morality can justify the means and ends. Where Suzanne's morality, like believing in freedom of speech and expression, is so obviously wrong, when she likes an end but doesn't think the means are justified she is "incoherent". I get it.

Huh? This wasn't even a freedom of speech case. SUZANNE herself said it was a religious belief issue, which SHE considered wrong-headed, but doesn't care because SHE liked the outcome.

Will you be available at all times to vet the morality of us mere mortals and help us avoid "incoherent" positions? Please, please professor ti-guy?